OUR OPINION: Transgender rights must accommodate all

Last week, the Massachusetts House of Representatives had a thoughtful debate on public accommodations for transgendered people. We commend them for doing so and for reaching a moderate compromise. Unfortunately, what motivated the debate is not so commendable.

The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, MA

Writer

Posted May. 1, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated May 1, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Posted May. 1, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated May 1, 2013 at 1:12 AM

» Social News

Last week, the Massachusetts House of Representatives had a thoughtful debate on public accommodations for transgendered people. We commend them for doing so and for reaching a moderate compromise.

Unfortunately, what motivated the debate is not so commendable. In February, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester notified school principals that effective immediately, they are required to allow students in grades K-12 who self-identify as transgender to use the public school bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify. Chester, as a representative of the Patrick administration, acted unilaterally after the Legislature removed public accommodations from the 2012 Transgender Rights Law. That was done out of consideration for the broader public’s privacy interests following an outcry from Massachusetts voters.

Chester released the new policy (it can be read at www.doe.mass.edu/ssce/GenderIdentity.pdf) on a Friday. For the most part, the media was not notified by the governor’s office, nor was the Legislature. It was an affront to the legislative process, not because of the nature of the directive, but because legislators had publicly debated the issue after carefully considering feedback from their constituents. If the Patrick administration had wanted to change the policy, it should have done so openly.

The amendment the House tacked onto the budget last week tweaks the public school transgender policy. It would allow school administrators with input from parents to implement a policy so as not to “cause discrimination and safety issues.”

The problem with the policy the Patrick administration handed down in February is that it took into account only one population. There was no consideration for the young girl who – for religious or societal reasons – feels uncomfortable or even unsafe in a bathroom or locker room with someone who identifies as a girl but is anatomically a boy. The same may be said of teen boys, especially when one takes into consideration the exposure they have at public urinals.

The preteen and teen years are delicate ones as bodies transform – sometimes to the shame and humiliation of the child. Children are hyper self-conscious about their bodies. Books have been written about how anxious a time it can be to change in front of one’s peers for gym, the onset of menstruation, the awkward moments when boys become young men.

That isn’t to say that transgender youths don’t need accommodations. But any child, for any reason, who feels unsafe or unsure in a public restroom should be allowed to use, say, the nurses’ restroom or other private area.

But to codify rules that make some children – and some of their parents – uncomfortable is unreasonable. We as a society have promoted individual rights at the expense of the masses to a ridiculous degree. The pendulum has to swing back to what is fair and equitable.

Page 2 of 2 - The Patrick administration’s advisory, undoubtedly issued with the best of intentions, tramples the rights of all in favor of the one. The House compromise means that administrators, with input from parents, can evaluate each individual situation appropriately.

When the amendment comes before the Senate, we urge them to vote for it in order to accommodate everyone’s rights.